Re: [for-4.7 1/2] xen/bitops: Introduce macros to generate mask

["Jan Beulich" <jbeulich@suse.com>]

>>> Julien Grall <julien.grall@arm.com> 04/14/16 5:08 PM >>>
>On 14/04/16 15:56, Jan Beulich wrote:
>>>>> Julien Grall <julien.grall@arm.com> 04/14/16 10:55 AM >>>
>>> On 14/04/2016 05:01, Jan Beulich wrote:
>>>>>>> Julien Grall <julien.grall@arm.com> 04/13/16 6:01 PM >>>
>>>>> --- a/xen/include/xen/bitops.h
>>>>> +++ b/xen/include/xen/bitops.h
>>>>> @@ -3,6 +3,17 @@
>>>>    >#include <asm/types.h>
>>>>    >
>>>>    >/*
>>>>> + * Create a contiguous bitmask starting at bit position @l and ending at
>>>>> + * position @h. For example
>>>>> + * GENMASK_ULL(39, 21) gives us the 64bit vector 0x000000ffffe00000.
>>>>> + */
>>>>> +#define GENMASK(h, l) \
>>>>> +    (((~0UL) << (l)) & (~0UL >> (BITS_PER_LONG - 1 - (h))))
>>>>> +
>>>>> +#define GENMASK_ULL(h, l) \
>>>>> +    (((~0ULL) << (l)) & (~0ULL >> (BITS_PER_LONG_LONG - 1 - (h))))
>>>>
>>>> Irrespective of Linux perhaps considering them useful, I'm not sure they
>>>> are (and ISTR these macros having got proposed before).
>>>
>>> This is useful on ARM to generate mask for register. For instance, the
>>> following patch introduces mask for the register HPFAR_EL2. Only the
>>> bits [4:39] are usable, the rest are RES0.
>>>
>>> For ARM, RES0 means the bit is currently read as zero but the software
>>> should not rely on it to preserve forward compatibility. So we want to
>>> mask those bits to avoid breakage with new version of the architecture.
>>
>>   All understood and needed on every kind of architecture. Yet what's wrong
>> with expressing this is as 0xfffffffff0, as is being done most everywhere else?
>
>It is less intuitive to read and it is easier to make a mistake in the mask.

Well, I guess that depends on the person reading/writing the respective piece
of code. To me the macroized form would at least require getting used to.

Jan


_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@lists.xen.org
http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel